I am waiting for Vishnu's NDTV publication to officially call this one against YouTube Terry. I feel sorry for Col. Fornof, not too long ago this same Trimble quoted him verbatim on a pod cast as if what he said was da truth and now he gives him the moniker YouTube Terry. I tell you these mediawallahs are really cruel folks.

If you read the comments Trimble was pointed to this B-R thread a number of times, so probably after reading thru shiv's post and GJ's explanations and jingo dissection of matter in question, he nicknamed the good colonel YouTube Terry!

One thing though I never understand,...a lot of comments seem to be 'Terry praised IAF also why are not Indians focusing on that'....its like telling someone that her face looks like that of an ass (even though it doesnt) but her fingers are really beautiful! IAF is not some 2 bit outfit of the kind the USAF usually tangles with,...that they will bow and scrape when massa throws some crumbs of praise laced with heavy doses of misguided gyan, regardless of the veracity of the stuff.

Firstly, service personnel are trained to focus on their job. Collecting trivia information isn’t a part of their job routine. Hence I find it fully plausible that he doesn’t know MiG21 has a Russian radar than an Israeli one or the Su30 engine is Saturn rather than Trumansky. Because he devotes his attention to flying rather than reading Janes IDR! Just to give an example, most F-16s use P&W or GE engines. Pakistani F-16s use P&W engines. Yet if you quizzed of all IAF WAC & SWAC pilots, flight commanders and squadron commanders, most of them won’t be able to identify a Pakistani F-16’s engine. Because they focus on understanding the F-16’s fighting & flying capabilities rather than the brand of its engine or radar. Similarly, 90% of IN ship and sub commanders won’t know what brand of engine powers Pakistani Type 21s. Hell, half of them won’t know what brand powers their own ships. To them it’s just “diesels” or “GTs” generating “xyz” hp. That suffices in their job rather than knowing the name of some obscure Russian diesel or GT manufacturing factory.

Secondly, information is disseminated on a need to know basis. So not everyone associated with an exercise would know all facts – like IAF didn’t use full maneuverability capabilities or radar in training mode or no datalink. A person not knowing finer details would assume that IAF put in their “best efforts” rather than “40% of best efforts”.

Thirdly, an inexperienced pilot using TVC can commit the exact mistake cited. It has been discovered in India itself. However pilots in their eagerness and the heat of the moment end up losing energy in a dogfight, ending up as a target. The most common reason for REPEATING this mistake is the cockiness and overconfidence that I can pull it off. To give an example, most of us, while driving cars or bikes, would have tried to “cut” and overtake some other bus/car/bike thinking we are faster than the other bus/car/bike and ended up dashing it. It’s the most common reason for accidents on Mumbai roads committed almost daily by drivers with years of experience. I am sure all of us would have done such mistakes at some point of time in our lives.

Lastly, most soldiers have a raw pride in his paltan/squadron/ship. His squadron is better than others – no matter what. Innumerable mess and bar brawls have been fought over this – even if your squadron flies obsolete Hawker Hunters. This feeling often permeates into the best efforts towards objective analysis. So Colonel Saab had the feeling that no matter what, his air force and his planes are the best and the others mediocre. This was evident in his bragging. So many times we’ve all similarly boasted to our friends!

So lets things rest. We’ve proven our point. Air HQ did the best thing in avoiding making any comments. The website posting his personal details was very cheap and demeaning. Please dont humiliate a person because you dont agree with his views.

Reality check – sad but true - is that India has far lesser numbers of aircraft and air warriors than internet warriors. Winning internet polls and posting on blogs won’t change that. However young men joining the services rather than wasting time surfing the net would definitely help.

Agree he has been pulled too much on Israeli radar and Tumanski engine trivia but he lied through his teeth claiming that Indians got "their brain drilled out" in 1vs1 fight. He also claimed that because of that drilling they gave up on 1vs1 fights later. He must own up to these statements and back them up or he is game to folks for "drilling his brain out" to get the Cra!p outta it.

its 21:1 because it is 21 victories to a "no call" ie where the result was declared drawread what shiv, george j and vishnu now pushpindar singh say, all mention ---> victory and draw and mails/comments also say in no situation was mki ever "exposed" or "shot down"do you think 4 separate source speaking to 4 separate people will be so unanimous otherwise

and if you think this is "unbelievable" then it is also true that mki crews are facing a lot many lopsided vectories when tvc is usedi had said previously that mki actual tvc turn rate was not what was there at red flag according to you tube terry; now there is confirmation from vishnu and george j and shiv

tsarkar is correct about not humiliating you tube terrybut seriously why did terry have to make such false claim

iaf has respect for usaf; at end of exercise iaf was felicitated by actual usaf evaluators as the leaders and were called to stagebut such claims by youtube terry's lacks grace and was outright lie

if 21:1 in favour of IAF is usaf dominatingwhat mathemagic is required to say IAF did better

40,000:1?

Last edited by Vikram_S on 24 Nov 2008 23:21, edited 2 times in total.

now that i did tvc and got my point across fair and square (finally! )

cool down, not at all USAF guy are terence fornof:

this vido and comment was once posted on youtube too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgxtCSjLVU

uploader:In memory of Shailendra Singh (Shail Sr).Dedicated to some of the best pilots in the World! Ja Hind!

some guy:Awesome! Looking forward to more videos such as these. This is from the Instructors Training School at AFS Tambaram at Chennai, isn't it?

Indeed it is! Thanks... I know it's low quality video, but it was my first ever effort. The shots vary between the practice at Chennai Beach and then cuts from the IAF AF Academy outside Hyderabad. I was an exchange Instructor w/ India from 03-05. Are you affilliated with the IAF? If so, please try to get the word out on this video. The IAF has some of the best pilots ever!

it was later removed i think somebody may have objectedso things are not as black or white

“For you to believe him that pilots in their eagerness and the heat of the moment end up losing energy in a dogfight would mean that you also believe his "we dominated" and "drilled his brains out" claim.”

I do believe pilots commit mistakes. Otherwise even the great Manfred von Richtofen wouldn’t be killed. At the same time, I DO NOT believe his "we dominated" and "drilled his brains out" claim. I clearly wrote earlier that he was bragging before his community. Belief in point 1 DOESN’T automatically mean belief in point 2.

The 21-1 and all such numbers are nonsense. The US has a bunch of statistical bean counters that they should have disposed after Vietnam. They tried to win a war by statistically basing it on tonnage of bomb dropped! I hope the IAF doesnt start deriving comfort from statistics!

My point is that the Colonel observations were right but he drew incorrect conclusions from those observations. Probably to suit his own pet theories to brag before his community. And who among us has never bragged??? Disprove him, but please don’t humiliate him by posting personal details like Shiv Aroor is doing on his website.

Vikram – All I noted was that the Colonel has correctly identified a common pilot error in TVC based dogfighting. That DOESN’T mean the error can’t be rectified/pilot is bad/IAF is bad/engagement was lost/war was lost!

For example, any force on the offensive suffers more attrition than a force on the defensive. Luftwaffe lost more planes over Britain and RAF/USAAF lost more planes over occupied Europe. What matters is achievement of strategic objectives. The Royal Navy lost more ships in the Battle of Jutland in WW-I, however gained strategic control of the North Sea.

Lastly, press releases are carefully drafted for political correctness, reveal nothing, obfuscate facts, little bit of self acclamation, not hurting own ego, not hurting your ally’s ego and support your pet manufacturer so that he makes money exporting and gives you discount on spares. Don’t read too much into them!

Someone who is aware of the facts but makes incorrect conclusions, shouldn't get on a stand claiming expertise in the subject.

Moreover, civilian enthusiasts on this forum are better informed about the subject of this "expertise". So this guy, whose business is to know such things, only revealed his ignorance.

This is not about cockiness of a top gun, or even deliberate misinformation. This is just about misjudgement on the part of an individual that his job title is enough to convince the audience (not just the ones physically present) of the credibility of information.

I agree with you that a person holding that position should have known his facts. However most positions of these nature are filled by middle aged ex squadron / wing commanders who don’t have the inclination to research deeply as a youngster would. They think they’ve seen all / done all.

He is certainly guilty of bragging in front of what he thought was a closed audience. He didn’t claim expertise – the media did.

To his credit, he got some parts right. For example, on TVC,

US, UK and India have been flying Harriers for ages. The jargon then was "viffing" - vector in forward flight. By vectoring their nozzles, the pilots would take a snap turn in a turn or loop and take a quick shot. While pilots practiced, they decided against using it.

The sudden drop in airspeed while viffing caused the Harrier to be a sitting duck for many seconds for opponents other than its intended target. To better explain, Harrier viffs to target enemy A. Enemy B some distance off can easily pick the Harrier as it has lost airspeed that it will take some time to regain. Guns are used in these situations.

Secondly, the stress on the engine and airframe were severe for this maneuver. This would place operational restrictions on future missions. At sea or forward bases, maintenance facilities were limited and this meant that the aircraft wouldn’t be available for future missions for the rest of the deployment. I recollect in Aero India 2005 (or was it 2007?), during a press conference, the CO of No 30 squadron declined to perform these TVC maneuvers as they would stress the engine and aircraft.

These laws of physics and material sciences will definitely apply to F-22, Su30 or F-35B that a smart opponent can exploit. I credit the Colonel for correctly identifying this. Whether a Su30 actually made this error in US, we don’t know!

I guess it all depends on who you want to believe and what you want to claim.

It is more than obvious that Terry in his eagerness to earn the steak and beer he was being offered, kind of gave the similar lecture that such pilots give, without any care for the truth and about who is going to find out. It is just a "regular" lecture. By the way he was there as an expert/authority on the subject and he was speaking to audience as such. Nowhere did he expect that his case is going to be taken up by hungry cyber wolves and 24 hour news media that breaths sensationalism. I am sure what ever he did was the way things were done always, regarding any air combat stories. Infact the way he talked about the French, just shows that this is not a new thing but a normal evening for the US pilots. If anything French should be up in the arms looking at that video. But the whole episode, shows that the days of empty bragging especially with respect to the IAF are over and for a good measure I think. This made big news in India as this is big news for IAF as is evident.

For anyone thinking otherwise, just think if this was the other way around, IAF colnel, bragging that they drilled the brains out of the American pilots who thought they could do anything, but came up short. The same US 24 hour media and the cyber hogs would have chewed it up, and spitted it out.

For the people who do not like the "Pie on the face" pictures, welcome to the reality, it is not your choice. This shock and Awe was not by IAF, but by ordinary janta and done in peace times to boot.

Yes, this is a chest thumping post. If you do not like it, then you have a problem.

Before we rush to add our 2 bits worth to the crockpot of criticism, let's not forget the absolutely asinine article by Adm. (Retd) JG Nadkarni on rediff.com a few days after the LCA's 1st flight that recommended that the program be scrapped How many things were wrong with that?While it does matter that the colonel is a test pilot and is expected to know a little more than a routine operational pilot, his ignorance would still be cause for concern, because serving personnel who talks from a podium addressing fellow officers in any capacity whould have at least read up the basics. It is hard to concede that the Colonel did not read up or prepare for his speech and still harder to accept that the vast sources of information he had access to lead him to believe that the SU30 MKI uses a Tumansky and the MiG-21 Bison uses an Israeli Radar. These are errors of fact that point to non-serious thinking and poor preparation. OK the Colonel I am sure knows his job, but this wasn't his regular job.

I agree with you that a person holding that position should have known his facts. However most positions of these nature are filled by middle aged ex squadron / wing commanders who don’t have the inclination to research deeply as a youngster would. They think they’ve seen all / done all.

He is certainly guilty of bragging in front of what he thought was a closed audience. He didn’t claim expertise – the media did.

To his credit, he got some parts right. For example, on TVC,

US, UK and India have been flying Harriers for ages. The jargon then was "viffing" - vector in forward flight. By vectoring their nozzles, the pilots would take a snap turn in a turn or loop and take a quick shot. While pilots practiced, they decided against using it.

The sudden drop in airspeed while viffing caused the Harrier to be a sitting duck for many seconds for opponents other than its intended target. To better explain, Harrier viffs to target enemy A. Enemy B some distance off can easily pick the Harrier as it has lost airspeed that it will take some time to regain. Guns are used in these situations.

Though you made a lucid explanation of your point, i have some difficulties in putting that into the context at the sametime I'm not opposing.

1. Su-30MKI have higher situational awarness to let someone close at tail ( ~1 km) to pull the trigger while taking the enemy A with such manoeuver. Will there be any enemy B in 1 V 1 engagement ? While at receiving end, will enemy A can make such bragging statement ?

2. Compared to Harrier, Su-30MKI enjoys better flight characteristics with better engine, control surfaces, twin engine with 2D nozzles leaves little to be comparable to Harrier. So expecting SU-30MKI to handle similar situation with similar results may not be correct.

Ofcourse, we dont know what actually happened, we are discounting various possibilites.

Cleaned up the thread - I have left TSarkars post that started all this in the thread. Now everyone who wants to start over again explaining it to him, take a deep breath and put those answers in a clear and concise answer to his queries.

Before I begin my scenario building exercise , we need to realise that while we on the forum might not be as knowledgeable as the Hon Col. the boys in the IAF know their machine very well , and it is needless to say that they know more about the MKI's envelope than the Hon Col. and hence obviously would not engage the TVC as described by the Col.

I believe its needless to say Col. got the facts wrong as far as the MKI's engine and Bison's radar are concerned , however this imo does not negate his knowledge of the air warfare and flying and that is why it becomes even more important for Jingo's to take his comments seriously .

His statement about aircraft bleeding energy while engaging TVC is true (classical physics), however Col.'s comments sounded like 'Engaging TVC == Disadvantage in a Dogfight/Merge' , the issue is one can build equal or more number of scenarios showing the utility of the TVC in battlefield as against it.All in all Col. created a scenario to show the superiority of the F-15 over the MKI (assuming that the MKI pilot would engage the TVC even when not required) , what is noteworthy is while evaluating two aircraft it is customary to assume that the pilots in the two aircraft have comparable skill, and if that is the case the pilot in the MKI will have the added OPTION of engaging the TVC (he obviously knows as to how a non vectored thrust plane would behave in the given situation as compared to a TVC equipped plane , and he would choose to engage the TVC accordingly).

I really dont see any point in discussing the Col and his statements any more. IMHO enough has already been discussed, if people want to believe otherwise it is their exclusive choice. By keeping on arguing and discussing what the hon. Col said we seem to give his statements more importance that what it deserves.

You’ve probably heard about the video that surfaced of USAF F-15 pilot Col Terrence Fornof giving a lecture about the performance of the Indian AF Su-30MKIs and other participants at Red Flag this year. If not, I recommend you watch it…

Now, despite an apology from the USAF, making clear that these were Col Fornof’s personal comments and not an official view, the Indian media has got hold of the story and is milking it for all it’s worth. I especially enjoyed this clip from an Indian news channel, originally posted by Stephen Trimble on his Flightglobal blog — suffice to say, the style of the report is rather alien to those of us who prefer a John Simpson or a Jeremy Bowen.

What this brings to my mind, apart from what it says about the relative merits of the respective aircraft and pilots, is the manner in which so many official public statements about aviation matters — military and civil — have been so hopelessly emasculated by the need to present a positive or unified image that anything mildly controversial is deemed notable or, worse, shocking. I don’t expect anything to be released that is in any way unwise or sensitive, but a bit more genuine information and a bit less spin would not go amiss. In this case, I was pleased to hear a set of opinions that didn’t toe the party line. Indeed, I look forward to a similarly ‘honest’ Indian response to the perceived slur. Will we get one?

tsarkar wrote:..............To his credit, he got some parts right. For example, on TVC................

To put this very mildly now that Jagan has cleaned it up. You have disappointed me with your absolute apathy to what has been posted on this issue in general.

From the the archive thread and also from Page 2 of this thread which you SHOULD have read wrote:From the email I was "asked" to post.3. The behaviour of the MKI in thrust vectoring is incorrectly described. Maybe someone who has actually flown against the MKI can do better justice, provided it’s an honest and unbiased assessment.

Shiv's email:2.The data rates of turn and TV with regard to the Su is grossly out- the ones on the F-22 may be closer to the truth!! The figures for the Su are very much more than that referred to in the video!!

Last edited by George J on 26 Nov 2008 07:37, edited 2 times in total.

kaangeya wrote:While it does matter that the colonel is a test pilot and is expected to know a little more than a routine operational pilot, his ignorance would still be cause for concern, because serving personnel who talks from a podium addressing fellow officers in any capacity whould have at least read up the basics. It is hard to concede that the Colonel did not read up or prepare for his speech and still harder to accept that the vast sources of information he had access to lead him to believe that the SU30 MKI uses a Tumansky and the MiG-21 Bison uses an Israeli Radar. These are errors of fact that point to non-serious thinking and poor preparation. OK the Colonel I am sure knows his job, but this wasn't his regular job.

Hi Kaangeya. I have been resisting so far not to post this but there have been too many "The Col should atleast know this" type posts. I talked to one IA officer who happens to be my friend and he didn't know about PLA's main infantry rifile. Another said that Beretta is german and "What's the de-cocking lever on a Pistol?" No offence meant to anyone (including my friends ) in Indian armed forces but this is the way it is.

Firstly, service personnel are trained to focus on their job. Collecting trivia information isn’t a part of their job routine. Hence I find it fully plausible that he doesn’t know MiG21 has a Russian radar than an Israeli one or the Su30 engine is Saturn rather than Trumansky. Because he devotes his attention to flying rather than reading Janes IDR! Just to give an example, most F-16s use P&W or GE engines. Pakistani F-16s use P&W engines. Yet if you quizzed of all IAF WAC & SWAC pilots, flight commanders and squadron commanders, most of them won’t be able to identify a Pakistani F-16’s engine. Because they focus on understanding the F-16’s fighting & flying capabilities rather than the brand of its engine or radar. Similarly, 90% of IN ship and sub commanders won’t know what brand of engine powers Pakistani Type 21s. Hell, half of them won’t know what brand powers their own ships. To them it’s just “diesels” or “GTs” generating “xyz” hp. That suffices in their job rather than knowing the name of some obscure Russian diesel or GT manufacturing factory.

Kanson – On point 1 - Enemy B doesn’t necessarily have to “close at tail” of the Su30. Enemy B can be present anywhere in the 360 azimuth and 360 elevation of the Su30.

Enemy A is dead meat unless Enemy B forces Su30 to abort its attack.

Difficult to maintain situational awareness with 12 of your own and 12 of the other guys buzzing like bees all round and the voices on the radio.

On point 2, despite the features you describe, any plane, F-22 or Su30 or Harrier can get into that situation. The basic premise of warfare / dogfighting / a game of chess or tennis is forcing your opponent to commit a mistake and exploit it.

There is a specific maneuver called the Thatch Weave developed to combat highly maneuverable fighters that I believe is still relevant here.

George – Don’t be disappointed! I am not disparaging the Su30 or taking sides, only saying that the situation described can well happen, even with the beloved F-22. Instead of being dismissive, we need to continuously keep learning & evolving.

>>>Firstly, service personnel are trained to focus on their job. Collecting trivia information isn’t a part of their job routine. Hence I find it fully plausible that he doesn’t know MiG21 has a Russian radar than an Israeli one or the Su30 engine is Saturn rather than Trumansky. Because he devotes his attention to flying rather than reading Janes IDR! Just to give an example, most F-16s use P&W or GE engines. Pakistani F-16s use P&W engines. Yet if you quizzed of all IAF WAC & SWAC pilots, flight commanders and squadron commanders, most of them won’t be able to identify a Pakistani F-16’s engine. Because they focus on understanding the F-16’s fighting & flying capabilities rather than the brand of its engine or radar. Similarly, 90% of IN ship and sub commanders won’t know what brand of engine powers Pakistani Type 21s. Hell, half of them won’t know what brand powers their own ships. To them it’s just “diesels” or “GTs” generating “xyz” hp. That suffices in their job rather than knowing the name of some obscure Russian diesel or GT manufacturing factory.

What you said is not entirely correct. Service personnel are encouraged to know as much about their own machines / equipment with as much details as possible, and also about their friendly forces and adversaries. These kind of information is not considered trivia, as you think it is. Similarly, giving out basic details like general dimensions to those not required is prohibited. Why? it can matter sometimes. So, please don't make sweeping statements.

By the way, how could this pilot say Tumansky (not Trumansky), which is tougher to remember than Saturn? So he knew something...It is a question of attitude - the armed forces (of any country) provide enough information to their men in uniform, to be more knowledgeable about military ware than their civilian counterparts. To read or not is individual option.

Hi Kaangeya. I have been resisting so far not to post this but there have been too many "The Col should atleast know this" type posts. I talked to one IA officer who happens to be my friend and he didn't know about PLA's main infantry rifile. Another said that Beretta is german and "What's the de-cocking lever on a Pistol?" No offence meant to anyone (including my friends ) in Indian armed forces but this is the way it is.

Yeah, and I talked to my friend who knows ACM Tipnis's son's friend, who has once flown with the USAF, who says that the Colonel should have... You get the idea right?

This wasn't a casual chat. This was a talk from a podium. There's a difference.

Hi Kaangeya. I have been resisting so far not to post this but there have been too many "The Col should atleast know this" type posts. I talked to one IA officer who happens to be my friend and he didn't know about PLA's main infantry rifile. Another said that Beretta is german and "What's the de-cocking lever on a Pistol?" No offence meant to anyone (including my friends ) in Indian armed forces but this is the way it is.

Yeah, and I talked to my friend who knows ACM Tipnis's son's friend, who has once flown with the USAF, who says that the Colonel should have... You get the idea right?

This wasn't a casual chat. This was a talk from a podium. There's a difference.

Yes that was a casual meeting and was not supposed to come out on youtube like that. He was speeking in 'Daedalians meet' as pointed out by Georje earlier.

That's why I was hesistant to point that out because I knew exactly someone will pull my leg over this issue of uncle's aunt's friend's paanwala . I hope instead of being nit picky, you will understand the underlying message.

Rahul M wrote:[ the good colonel's credibility goes out of the window if the topgun is his source on migs ! at least should have read the jane's mags he kept referring to !

that would be true if he quoted MiG-28s but My reference to diet of migs is mostly about the combat experience the US has had - Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1 - where their major air opposition in fighters have mostly been MiGs and very few ac of other types. Naturally all the literature and papers from their combat experiences will talk about MiGs, and it would be easier to remember the tongue twisting tumansky more than the llyukas or saturns.

that aside, I wont hold the colonel to such strict standards of knowledge as far as technicalities go. But he would certainly be answerable for talking about the events that didnt happen (as per the IAF). (TVC in air combat, dominating the sukhois etc)

Guys ... lets close this thread ... With the Mumbai blasts ... my focus has moved entirely away from the Red Flag sit. In any case ... the word has gone around and the real picture is now public knowledge.

In case I have time ... I will write something on our website ... ndtv.com and let you all know in advance.